I find it very interesting, from my own learning many years later, that the cross of Christ forms the very basis for "the mystery" taught by Paul.
Paul attributes the very creation of a "new humanity" - wherein all members are equal and there is no distinction or division according to race, gender or social position - not to the resurrection, not to Pentecost - but to the cross (Eph.2:14ff). This was the event that put all these things into effect, along with the abolishment of the Law and the worldly angelic powers which administered and enforced it. All these things are attributed by Paul to the cross.
I always felt there was something critically lacking in the way the Way taught the mystery, a fact which I think is especially reflected in their interpretation that Paul only preached the "mystery" of the cross
(1 Cor.2:1f) to Corinthians supposedly because they were too "spiritually immature" to understand truths relating to the "resurrection" (does anyone else recall this teaching?)- In other words, issues relative to the cross were intended for immature nitwits, while the "meat" of the resurrection for the fully initiated. Which interpretation is total nonsense.
The error in TWI's presentation of the mystery was one of the first doctrinal holes I perceived in their entire system.
I remember reading Corinthians over and over and eventually seeing the very opposite of what VP was saying.
He came to Indy in the early 70's and did a big public teaching out of I Cor.
That presentation actually became the Sunday Night teaching of the week. (I used to have it in my reel to reel colection and I listened to it many times)
TWi attitude and position placed them as spiritually mature and elite, but what they did not say or admit was that they skipped the difficult part of the "maturing" process, accepting the cross, dealing with it's effect upon sin in us and our lives.
They skipped around Jesus's cross to the good stuff, which is pointless if you do not put off the old.
There is a huge if not fatal flaw in assuming that familiarity with where certain containers of information (or truth) are located: with
the familiarity of a person experienced with living in those truths.
In other words:
TWI gloried in their "knowledge" of what they thought was the christian life.
I submit that all they had was a different take on simply knowing where in the library (we call the Bible) particular books and passages and sentences could be found.
There is a crucial difference between a librarian pointing you to all the library's resources (on say how to program javascript) and you interacting with a person who has not only read the books but has built project after project with javascript.
The elitism of the way was so wrong because they simply presented an alternative approach to pseudo-discipleship, which because of it's "itnellectual" nature could never really be proven to be more effective in real life than what the competition was selling, since it was pretty ineffective in the real world as well.
I think the "elitism" you refer to ... is one of the most long-lasting effects that TWI had on its people. Even those of us who have rejected much (if not most) of what TWI taught ... we still have trouble shaking off that elitism. The arrogance of our intellectual knowledge of the Word - it tends to hinder us in considering other possibilities, and it definitely fosters the gap between us as individuals and other folks who could possibly help us. -Pat
It's the message of the cross, where the power of Chrisitanity lies. Danny and Darrell, you guys are so right in your insights about the "missing link" in the teachings of VP and company, which I thought was the whole point of Kit's original post that started this whole discussion.
It's in the cross where the power of transformation lies.
It's the cross of Jesus Christ that confronts us with our own sin and what we will do with it, as Darrell said.
VP's gospel of "power for abundant living" was rendered "powerless" because of his refusal to asknowledge the message of the cross. After all, that message is "negative." It involves suffering, which was not allowed in the life of a "believing believer." Being "sin conscious" was in itself a "sin" according to VP. Not the beginning of transformation, and the road to purity and holiness.
My own personal opinion, is that when VP removed the cross from all the phsysical locations of TWI, he also removed the cross, from his message. Thus allowing the proliferation of sin in his "ministry."
Sheesh, this stuff gets really deep, doesn't it? But then I guess purging waybrain has always been a rather messy endeavor. At least for me.
[This message was edited by ex10 on November 23, 2003 at 11:22.]
My own personal opinion, is that when VP removed the cross from all the phsysical locations of TWI, he also removed the cross, from his message. Thus allowing the proliferation of sin in his "ministry."
Whoa!
That's my imperfect way of trying to convey
that this is a profound insight, ex-10.
Thank you. And to Kit and to all of the other contributors on this thread.
Why thankee, Danny, but all I did was kinda restate what Kit Sober wrote in her very insightful first few posts on this thread. ;)-->
I've thought about this whole subject for a long time. A few years back, my husband and I travelled to Israel and joined the hosts of Chrisitan pilgrims who have ventured there over the centuries. We walked the Via Della Rosa. It was a very moving experience for me, which surprised me. It left an impression on me which I guess I never really fully articulated until recently.
After we walked through the Arab quarter of Jerusalem, retracing Jesus' steps, I bought a beautiful gold cross, embedded with tiny rubies and white sapphires. It was very special to me, and I wore it often after that.
Last June, when my best friend who I'd met at my bible study years earlier told me she was moving overseas, I wanted to give her something precious to me that she would enjoy and appreciate. A couple of weeks before she left, we were in our bible study, (a study on the book of John) wrapping it up for the year, and she shared how she finally understood (after years as a Christian) that Jesus went to the cross for her personally. It was a very moving sharing and didn't leave a dry eye in the place. (There were about 400 women there.)
Then I knew what I could give her as a parting gift, that would remind her of our friendship. Of course we both cried when I gave it to her the night before we took her and family to the airport. Her not-yet-a-Chrisitan husband sat there mystified, not understanding the preciousness of that tiny cross. But it's a moment that neither she nor I will ever forget, and one that bonded us together probably for life. It's funny how powerful that symbol can be for us, isn't it?
quote:"And he [Jesus], bearing his cross..." is the phrase from which has been inferred that Jesus bore the wooden cross. This does not agree with the clear record in the other three Gospels. The first three Gospels state very plainly that Simon bore the cross from the door of the judgment hall. But, the Gospel of John states, "And he, bearing his cross went forth into a place called the place of a skull." "His cross" was not wooden, but spiritual.
The cross Jesus bore was composed of our sins and our transgressions. If it had been a wooden cross, what good would that have accomplished? He did not bear a piece of wood nor a tree. He bore our sins! Note that Colossians and Isaiah tell in part, at least, about the kind of cross Jesus bore.
Colossians 2:14:
Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his [His] cross.
Isaiah 53:6
All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
He took all the faults that were against us - the transgressions, the sins, the bondage, the sickness and the pain - and made them a part of His cross.
The Orientalism in verse 14 of Colossians 2 must be understood in the light of Isaiah 40:2, " ... that her iniquity is pardoned: for she hath received of the Lord's hand double for all her sins." According to the Orientalism the name of a man who was bankrupt was posted at the gate to the city by the Elders, along with the names of his creditors and how much he owed them. When the debts were completely paid, not partially paid, the Elders would double the paper over the man's name and nail it to the board. This signified that all which was against him was then blotted out, doubled. There was no longer condemnation against him. Christ our benefactor paid the debt in full, even when we were "dead in trespasses and sin." It is blotted out, for He "doubled" it for us. We received "double" for our sins because of Christ's payment for us.
II Corinthians 5:21:
For he [God] hath made him [Jesus] to be sin for us ... that we might be made the righteousness of God in him [that we might be made as righteous as God].
Isn't that wonderful! You ask, "Me, as righteous as God?" Yes, you.
Galatians 5:1:
Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free ["Hath" is in the past tense. How hath he made us free? By bearing that cross, the cross of bondage, for us.], and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.
Jesus bore that cross of bondage, the law, just for you and for me that we need not live under that bondage, "which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear," according to Acts 15:10.
Not only was Jesus' cross composed of our transgressions and sins, plus the bondage of the law, but also our sicknesses.
Matthew 8:16,17:
When the even was come, they brought unto him many that were possessed with devils: and he cast out the spirits with his word, and healed all that were sick [Jesus did this with His Word]:
That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses.
He became sickness just like He became sin. The very last clause of Isaiah 53:5 says, " ... and with his stripes we are healed."
Isaiah 53: 3-5:
He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows [pains], and acquainted with grief [sickness]: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
Surely he hath borne [carried or had put on Him] our griefs [sicknesses], and carried our sorrows [pains]: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
The cross of Jesus -- what was it? John says they "led him away. And he bearing his cross ...." The cross Jesus bore was of sin, bondage, sickness and pain.
The unlearned man had made the cross of Jesus a wooden cross. The Word says, and the spiritual man knows, that Christ's cross was sin, bondage, sickness and pain. A wooden cross could not accomplish anything, but the cross of Jesus did much. ...
Simon of Cyrene and the Cross Christ Bore
The Word's Way
Victor Paul Wierwille
pp. 224-227
Does the above quote sound like the twi position was to ignore, ridicule and reject respect for the cross of Christ?
Unfortunately, TWI proceeded to take that teaching and conclude "The cross of Christ wasn't the wooden cross." Then they mocked people who had reverence for what was accomplished on the wooden cross, as if people wear the cross to glorify the manner of Christ's death (as opposed to the significance of it).
quote:VP's gospel of "power for abundant living" was rendered "powerless" because of his refusal to asknowledge the message of the cross. After all, that message is "negative." It involves suffering, which was not allowed in the life of a "believing believer." Being "sin conscious" was in itself a "sin" according to VP. Not the beginning of transformation, and the road to purity and holiness.
My own personal opinion, is that when VP removed the cross from all the phsysical locations of TWI, he also removed the cross, from his message. Thus allowing the proliferation of sin in his "ministry."
Ex10 has a very good point. I don't think VPW intended to reject the message of the cross. But when TWI ridiculed the cross as a phallic symbol, the result was just the same.
Thanks for acknowledging that VP didn't intend to reject the message of the cross. Not only didn't he reject it, but he spoke of its true meaning over and over again.
One may accuse TWI of a lot of things, but saying TWI didn't respect, and ignored, and ridiculed the cross of Christ is just pure nonsense. It's a phony claim. And more so because the accusation came from someone who's been around for years and years. The true message of the cross of Christ was told over and over again in TWI so anyone who's been around for any length of time couldn't miss it.
If one wants to say that TWI should have been more tolerant of folks who wear crosses, or shouldn't have taught what Ralph Woodrow taught in "Babylon Mystery Religion", that the cross was really a pagan symbol, that's another matter entirely. I agree on that point. But rejecting the wooden/silver cross doesn't mean rejection of the cross Christ bore. I think that's fairly obvious.
They ridiculed the cross as a symbol. They never ridiculed the cross as the method of Christ's death.
Let's look at it from another direction:
when you see a cross on a building, what do you think?
a. There are Christians in that building. Look, ma, a church!
b. Look at those pagans worshiping the sun-god. If they were smart they'd take Power For Abundant Living and tear that thing down!
c. Christ died on one of those things. For me. Thank you for the reminder.
When I see a cross today, I think A and C.
During TWI, I thought B.
TWI taught B. They encouraged B. They patted you on the back and congratulated you on your superior knowledge for B.
Tell me, which attitude glorifies Christ and gives honor to his sacrifice?
quote:but saying TWI didn't respect, and ignored, and ridiculed the cross of Christ is just pure nonsense. It's a phony claim.
You're adding a word and drawing a distinction where the Bible does not. TWI did not ridicule the cross of Christ, but they ridiculed the cross, "period." They didn't ridicule the sacrifice of Christ, but they ridiculed those who wear a cross as a reminder of their Lord and Savior's sacrifice. No, they did not ricidule the cross "of Christ."
Yes, TWI ridiculed and disrespected the wooden/silver cross. But that's not what was said from the get go...
quote:Have you reconsidered the twi position of ignoring or ridiculing and rejecting respect for the cross of Christ?
TWI never ignored or ridiculed or rejected the cross of Christ.
Perhaps I am missing something. Are you saying that the original meaning of Kit Sober's words "the cross of Christ" meant she was talking about the wooden/silver cross?
If that's true, then one may also believe that a person cannot respect or admire the cross Christ bore without having a symbol around one's neck to prove it...
Yes, TWI ridiculed and disrespected the wooden/silver cross. But that's not what was said from the get go...
quote:Have you reconsidered the twi position of ignoring or ridiculing and rejecting respect for the cross of Christ?
TWI never ignored or ridiculed or rejected the cross of Christ.
Perhaps I am missing something. Are you saying that the original meaning of Kit Sober's words "the cross of Christ" meant she was talking about the wooden/silver cross?
If that's true, then one may also believe that a person cannot respect or admire the cross Christ bore without having a symbol around one's neck to prove it...
But the converse of that - if I'm recalling correctly, even if vaguely at the moment - is that the wood/gold/silver/plastic crosses were viewed in the category of a "religious" symbol -
and being a symbol of religion - had no place in the mindset that "true Christianity is not a religion". I think amidst our religious-like zeal in accepting the idea of "true" Christianity was "not a religion", led to an attitude of rejecting a number of symbols traditionally associated with what was oft referred as "Christen-dumb". Which is understandable in certain respects, but we obviously overreacted in others. The symbol of the cross being one of the casualties.
Don't you remember the mockery in circulation, "If Jesus died in an electric chair, would we wear electric chairs around our necks?" How many folks do you think were motivated from this sort of expression of attitude to wear a cross? If they did they most likely kept it under their shirts.
But such was instilled in us - the cross is a symbol of execution, of death. I think we were second only to vampires in our abhorrance of it.
After all, anyone subscribing to "true" Christianity ought to rather exalt the "resurrection" or "Pentecost"!
Am I making all this up? Is this only my unique recollection and impression of the attitude that prevailed amongst us at the time (up to '87)? or was I dreaming all of this up?
Danny
[This message was edited by TheInvisibleDan on November 27, 2003 at 3:34.]
quote:Don't you remember the mockery, "If Jesus died in an electric chair, would we wear electric chairs around our necks?" How many folks do you think were moved from this sort of expression of attitude to wear a cross?
Yes I remember that and also the one "if Jesus was killed with a machine gun, would you wear a machine gun around your neck?"
There's a real debatable question whether TWI should or shouldn't have condemned silver/gold/wooden crosses...
But to make the giant leap from that and say the TWI position was to ridicule, ignore the meaning of, and disrespect the cross of Christ, is pure folly. I think its more than that actually, I think these fanciful conclusions are in the category of evil surmisings.
Let's just ignore what VP wrote and think the worst.
You continuously draw a distinction between the cross of Christ and the cross on which Christ was crucified. The Bible draws no such distinction.
To dismiss the opposing point of view as "pure folly" and even "evil surmisings" probably makes it easier for you to dismiss what people are saying, but it's incorrect and dishonest.
TWI ridiculed the cross. TWI ridiculed people who looked at the cross as a symbol of the sacrifice of Christ. This is not thinking "evil," this is recognizing history.
Since some folks are concluding that the TWI position was to disrespect, ridicule and ignore the cross of Christ, can you show me in any of TWI's writings, anywhere it was taught we as Christians are to ignore, ridicule and disrespect the cross of Christ?
Why does ridicule of the wooden/silver/gold cross automatically mean disrespect for the cross Christ bore? That's your surmising, not necessarily the truth.
One other point: does the wearing of the cross on one's neck automatically mean that the wearer has respect for the cross Christ bore? If that's true then evil people can't or don't wear crosses...
If they rejected the "symbol" of the cross of Christ, it appears, at least to me, that a considerable amount of the "substance" of the cross of Christ was rejected/ignored/disrespected/ridiculed as well. If not tracable to Wierwille's writings, it certainly - and somehow - came out in a considerable amount of rotten "fruit", so to speak.
The creation of a new humanity (via the blood of the cross - Eph.2:14f), whereof all members of the body of Christ are equal, regardless of earthly race/gender/social standing - how did that translate into the structure of the Way organization, divided and subdivided as it was into the various leadership/overlord/school categories?
(BTW, I don't only have a bone to pick with the Way in this regard). This alone is far from exhibiting or reflecting an especial appreciation and deep understanding in the meaning of the cross of Christ.
The abolishment of the Old Testament? We went half the way with this ("things written beforehand for our learning"), but never really entirely let go the old leaven of the Old Testament (e.g., from the fear and retribution of tithing, the (written or unwritten)exaltation of a "man of God", the increase of legalism that cripples the group even more so to this day).
The abolishment of all hostile angelic powers (attributed to the cross by Paul) - VP was almost there, but he prematurely assumed that only "devil spirits" were the "archons" in 1 Cor.2:6-8; in other words, we knew everything about the weakest classes of angels (comparitively speaking), but apparently had little next to no inkling of the type of angelic powers Paul was actually speaking of here - namely, those angelic powers that served as enforcing overseers to the OT law (Gal.4, Col.2).
And finally, it's unfortunate that the Way apparently took little advantage of its own Aramaic studies, for in Eph.2:15b, in association with the cross, it reads (as have Tertullian and St.Ephraem also cited these passages) "...and the law of commandments by His commandments [= the commandments of Christ] he abolished, that from the both of them he might create one new man..."
One might ask, what were the "commandments" of Christ? Somehow the sayings of Jesus were viewed, even from the vantage point of the cross, as having comprised the "new commandments" which replaced the abolished Old Testament.
Early Christians oft interpreted the "maxims" or "precepts" of Jesus as having comprised or included His sayings uttered on the Sermon on the mount, the new law of Christ for all christians to abide by. Precepts on how to treat other fellow human beings.
But rather than treat the sayings of Jesus as also suggested in their importance in the meaning of the cross of Christ, - we relegated them (those contained in the gospels) to the same ineffective status of the Old Testament commandments(!).
Wierwille would not need to have worried about losing his ministry to "license" had he known that the sayings of Jesus were the "new commandments" for Christians to live in accordance with, instead of construing and abusing the idea of "grace" as some period of a free-for-all orgy-rama.
Merely from my observations of the attestation of experiences expressed throughout this forum, I don't think it "pure folly" that the Way missed the boat somewhere concerning the meaning of the cross.
I submit that GS would not exist here today had the Way grasped and appreciated a fuller understanding of the cross of Christ. It's obvious to at least myself that a lot was missed. Which is unfortunate.
quote:The creation of a new humanity (via the blood of the cross - Eph.2:14f), whereof all members of the body of Christ are equal, regardless of earthly race/gender/social standing - how did that translate into the structure of the Way organization, divided and subdivided as it was into the various leadership/overlord/school categories?
(BTW, I don't only have a bone to pick with the Way in this regard). This alone is far from exhibiting or reflecting an especial appreciation and deep understanding in the meaning of the cross of Christ.
Danny, if what you say here is true about organizational structure, then by comparison the Roman Catholic Church, with its divided and subdivided various leadership/overlord/school categories of overlords, are far from exhibiting or reflecting an especial meaning and deep understanding of the cross of Christ. Does institutional Mary Worship enhance the meaning of the cross of Christ?
And since they use the wooden/silver cross specifically as a supposed symbol of their faith around their necks, do THEY respect the true cross of Christ by their organizational structure with numerous overlords?
If the wooden/silver cross is really symbolic of the true meaning of the cross Christ bore, then they've denigraded it over the centuries by their rotten fruit, and shame on them for wearing that symbol.
[This message was edited by oldiesman on November 27, 2003 at 5:52.]
What does this have to do with the Catholic Church, oldies? A straw man, perhaps?
Yes, the substance of the cross was deliberately and overtly minimized. In Way doctrine it was sublimated to the ressurrection. (Nothin "good" about Good Friday, Wierwille said). It was considered milk where "the mystery" was considered meat. I maintain that the rotten fruit was a direct result of missing entirely this essential point of our faith, as Dan pointed out. Wierwille's tip of the hat to the meaning of the cross was another exercise in "biblical accuracy" that missed the point altogether.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
18
6
22
23
Popular Days
Dec 1
24
Nov 27
16
Nov 22
14
Nov 28
11
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 18 posts
TheInvisibleDan 6 posts
oldiesman 22 posts
ex10 23 posts
Popular Days
Dec 1 2003
24 posts
Nov 27 2003
16 posts
Nov 22 2003
14 posts
Nov 28 2003
11 posts
TheInvisibleDan
I find it very interesting, from my own learning many years later, that the cross of Christ forms the very basis for "the mystery" taught by Paul.
Paul attributes the very creation of a "new humanity" - wherein all members are equal and there is no distinction or division according to race, gender or social position - not to the resurrection, not to Pentecost - but to the cross (Eph.2:14ff). This was the event that put all these things into effect, along with the abolishment of the Law and the worldly angelic powers which administered and enforced it. All these things are attributed by Paul to the cross.
I always felt there was something critically lacking in the way the Way taught the mystery, a fact which I think is especially reflected in their interpretation that Paul only preached the "mystery" of the cross
(1 Cor.2:1f) to Corinthians supposedly because they were too "spiritually immature" to understand truths relating to the "resurrection" (does anyone else recall this teaching?)- In other words, issues relative to the cross were intended for immature nitwits, while the "meat" of the resurrection for the fully initiated. Which interpretation is total nonsense.
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Darrell Bailey
Lots of good comments here.
The error in TWI's presentation of the mystery was one of the first doctrinal holes I perceived in their entire system.
I remember reading Corinthians over and over and eventually seeing the very opposite of what VP was saying.
He came to Indy in the early 70's and did a big public teaching out of I Cor.
That presentation actually became the Sunday Night teaching of the week. (I used to have it in my reel to reel colection and I listened to it many times)
TWi attitude and position placed them as spiritually mature and elite, but what they did not say or admit was that they skipped the difficult part of the "maturing" process, accepting the cross, dealing with it's effect upon sin in us and our lives.
They skipped around Jesus's cross to the good stuff, which is pointless if you do not put off the old.
God Bless you all
Darrell
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Darrell Bailey
Addendum:
There is a huge if not fatal flaw in assuming that familiarity with where certain containers of information (or truth) are located: with
the familiarity of a person experienced with living in those truths.
In other words:
TWI gloried in their "knowledge" of what they thought was the christian life.
I submit that all they had was a different take on simply knowing where in the library (we call the Bible) particular books and passages and sentences could be found.
There is a crucial difference between a librarian pointing you to all the library's resources (on say how to program javascript) and you interacting with a person who has not only read the books but has built project after project with javascript.
The elitism of the way was so wrong because they simply presented an alternative approach to pseudo-discipleship, which because of it's "itnellectual" nature could never really be proven to be more effective in real life than what the competition was selling, since it was pretty ineffective in the real world as well.
D.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Schwaigers
Darrell,
I think the "elitism" you refer to ... is one of the most long-lasting effects that TWI had on its people. Even those of us who have rejected much (if not most) of what TWI taught ... we still have trouble shaking off that elitism. The arrogance of our intellectual knowledge of the Word - it tends to hinder us in considering other possibilities, and it definitely fosters the gap between us as individuals and other folks who could possibly help us. -Pat
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ex10
Wow you guys, excellent points!
It's the message of the cross, where the power of Chrisitanity lies. Danny and Darrell, you guys are so right in your insights about the "missing link" in the teachings of VP and company, which I thought was the whole point of Kit's original post that started this whole discussion.
It's in the cross where the power of transformation lies.
It's the cross of Jesus Christ that confronts us with our own sin and what we will do with it, as Darrell said.
VP's gospel of "power for abundant living" was rendered "powerless" because of his refusal to asknowledge the message of the cross. After all, that message is "negative." It involves suffering, which was not allowed in the life of a "believing believer." Being "sin conscious" was in itself a "sin" according to VP. Not the beginning of transformation, and the road to purity and holiness.
My own personal opinion, is that when VP removed the cross from all the phsysical locations of TWI, he also removed the cross, from his message. Thus allowing the proliferation of sin in his "ministry."
Sheesh, this stuff gets really deep, doesn't it? But then I guess purging waybrain has always been a rather messy endeavor. At least for me.
[This message was edited by ex10 on November 23, 2003 at 11:22.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Whoa!
That's my imperfect way of trying to convey
that this is a profound insight, ex-10.
Thank you. And to Kit and to all of the other contributors on this thread.
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ex10
Why thankee, Danny, but all I did was kinda restate what Kit Sober wrote in her very insightful first few posts on this thread.
;)-->
I've thought about this whole subject for a long time. A few years back, my husband and I travelled to Israel and joined the hosts of Chrisitan pilgrims who have ventured there over the centuries. We walked the Via Della Rosa. It was a very moving experience for me, which surprised me. It left an impression on me which I guess I never really fully articulated until recently.
After we walked through the Arab quarter of Jerusalem, retracing Jesus' steps, I bought a beautiful gold cross, embedded with tiny rubies and white sapphires. It was very special to me, and I wore it often after that.
Last June, when my best friend who I'd met at my bible study years earlier told me she was moving overseas, I wanted to give her something precious to me that she would enjoy and appreciate. A couple of weeks before she left, we were in our bible study, (a study on the book of John) wrapping it up for the year, and she shared how she finally understood (after years as a Christian) that Jesus went to the cross for her personally. It was a very moving sharing and didn't leave a dry eye in the place. (There were about 400 women there.)
Then I knew what I could give her as a parting gift, that would remind her of our friendship. Of course we both cried when I gave it to her the night before we took her and family to the airport. Her not-yet-a-Chrisitan husband sat there mystified, not understanding the preciousness of that tiny cross. But it's a moment that neither she nor I will ever forget, and one that bonded us together probably for life. It's funny how powerful that symbol can be for us, isn't it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
The following describes the twi position on the cross of Christ:
Simon of Cyrene and the Cross
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ex10
Oldies,
And your point might be?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Ex10,
Here's my point:
Simon of Cyrene and the Cross Christ Bore
The Word's Way
Victor Paul Wierwille
pp. 224-227
Does the above quote sound like the twi position was to ignore, ridicule and reject respect for the cross of Christ?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Hiccup.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Good point, Oldiesman.
Unfortunately, TWI proceeded to take that teaching and conclude "The cross of Christ wasn't the wooden cross." Then they mocked people who had reverence for what was accomplished on the wooden cross, as if people wear the cross to glorify the manner of Christ's death (as opposed to the significance of it).
Ex10 has a very good point. I don't think VPW intended to reject the message of the cross. But when TWI ridiculed the cross as a phallic symbol, the result was just the same.
Fascinating discussion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Rafael,
Thanks for acknowledging that VP didn't intend to reject the message of the cross. Not only didn't he reject it, but he spoke of its true meaning over and over again.
One may accuse TWI of a lot of things, but saying TWI didn't respect, and ignored, and ridiculed the cross of Christ is just pure nonsense. It's a phony claim. And more so because the accusation came from someone who's been around for years and years. The true message of the cross of Christ was told over and over again in TWI so anyone who's been around for any length of time couldn't miss it.
If one wants to say that TWI should have been more tolerant of folks who wear crosses, or shouldn't have taught what Ralph Woodrow taught in "Babylon Mystery Religion", that the cross was really a pagan symbol, that's another matter entirely. I agree on that point. But rejecting the wooden/silver cross doesn't mean rejection of the cross Christ bore. I think that's fairly obvious.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Oldiesman,
They ridiculed the cross as a symbol. They never ridiculed the cross as the method of Christ's death.
Let's look at it from another direction:
when you see a cross on a building, what do you think?
a. There are Christians in that building. Look, ma, a church!
b. Look at those pagans worshiping the sun-god. If they were smart they'd take Power For Abundant Living and tear that thing down!
c. Christ died on one of those things. For me. Thank you for the reminder.
When I see a cross today, I think A and C.
During TWI, I thought B.
TWI taught B. They encouraged B. They patted you on the back and congratulated you on your superior knowledge for B.
Tell me, which attitude glorifies Christ and gives honor to his sacrifice?
You're adding a word and drawing a distinction where the Bible does not. TWI did not ridicule the cross of Christ, but they ridiculed the cross, "period." They didn't ridicule the sacrifice of Christ, but they ridiculed those who wear a cross as a reminder of their Lord and Savior's sacrifice. No, they did not ricidule the cross "of Christ."
They just ridiculed the cross.
Think about it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Yes, TWI ridiculed and disrespected the wooden/silver cross. But that's not what was said from the get go...
TWI never ignored or ridiculed or rejected the cross of Christ.
Perhaps I am missing something. Are you saying that the original meaning of Kit Sober's words "the cross of Christ" meant she was talking about the wooden/silver cross?
If that's true, then one may also believe that a person cannot respect or admire the cross Christ bore without having a symbol around one's neck to prove it...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ex10
Oldies,
You have your opinion, I have mine. I believe that the arrogance and the false teachings of VP, bred out and out contempt for the cross of Christ.
Have a nice Thanksgiving.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
But the converse of that - if I'm recalling correctly, even if vaguely at the moment - is that the wood/gold/silver/plastic crosses were viewed in the category of a "religious" symbol -
and being a symbol of religion - had no place in the mindset that "true Christianity is not a religion". I think amidst our religious-like zeal in accepting the idea of "true" Christianity was "not a religion", led to an attitude of rejecting a number of symbols traditionally associated with what was oft referred as "Christen-dumb". Which is understandable in certain respects, but we obviously overreacted in others. The symbol of the cross being one of the casualties.
Don't you remember the mockery in circulation, "If Jesus died in an electric chair, would we wear electric chairs around our necks?" How many folks do you think were motivated from this sort of expression of attitude to wear a cross? If they did they most likely kept it under their shirts.
But such was instilled in us - the cross is a symbol of execution, of death. I think we were second only to vampires in our abhorrance of it.
After all, anyone subscribing to "true" Christianity ought to rather exalt the "resurrection" or "Pentecost"!
Am I making all this up? Is this only my unique recollection and impression of the attitude that prevailed amongst us at the time (up to '87)? or was I dreaming all of this up?
Danny
[This message was edited by TheInvisibleDan on November 27, 2003 at 3:34.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Yes I remember that and also the one "if Jesus was killed with a machine gun, would you wear a machine gun around your neck?"
There's a real debatable question whether TWI should or shouldn't have condemned silver/gold/wooden crosses...
But to make the giant leap from that and say the TWI position was to ridicule, ignore the meaning of, and disrespect the cross of Christ, is pure folly. I think its more than that actually, I think these fanciful conclusions are in the category of evil surmisings.
Let's just ignore what VP wrote and think the worst.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Oldiesman,
You continuously draw a distinction between the cross of Christ and the cross on which Christ was crucified. The Bible draws no such distinction.
To dismiss the opposing point of view as "pure folly" and even "evil surmisings" probably makes it easier for you to dismiss what people are saying, but it's incorrect and dishonest.
TWI ridiculed the cross. TWI ridiculed people who looked at the cross as a symbol of the sacrifice of Christ. This is not thinking "evil," this is recognizing history.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Rafael,
Let me try to put it another way.
Since some folks are concluding that the TWI position was to disrespect, ridicule and ignore the cross of Christ, can you show me in any of TWI's writings, anywhere it was taught we as Christians are to ignore, ridicule and disrespect the cross of Christ?
Why does ridicule of the wooden/silver/gold cross automatically mean disrespect for the cross Christ bore? That's your surmising, not necessarily the truth.
One other point: does the wearing of the cross on one's neck automatically mean that the wearer has respect for the cross Christ bore? If that's true then evil people can't or don't wear crosses...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
P.S.
The Jehovah's Witnesses do not celebrate Christmas. Does that mean they automatically are disrespecting, ridiculing and ignoring the birth of Christ?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
If they rejected the "symbol" of the cross of Christ, it appears, at least to me, that a considerable amount of the "substance" of the cross of Christ was rejected/ignored/disrespected/ridiculed as well. If not tracable to Wierwille's writings, it certainly - and somehow - came out in a considerable amount of rotten "fruit", so to speak.
The creation of a new humanity (via the blood of the cross - Eph.2:14f), whereof all members of the body of Christ are equal, regardless of earthly race/gender/social standing - how did that translate into the structure of the Way organization, divided and subdivided as it was into the various leadership/overlord/school categories?
(BTW, I don't only have a bone to pick with the Way in this regard). This alone is far from exhibiting or reflecting an especial appreciation and deep understanding in the meaning of the cross of Christ.
The abolishment of the Old Testament? We went half the way with this ("things written beforehand for our learning"), but never really entirely let go the old leaven of the Old Testament (e.g., from the fear and retribution of tithing, the (written or unwritten)exaltation of a "man of God", the increase of legalism that cripples the group even more so to this day).
The abolishment of all hostile angelic powers (attributed to the cross by Paul) - VP was almost there, but he prematurely assumed that only "devil spirits" were the "archons" in 1 Cor.2:6-8; in other words, we knew everything about the weakest classes of angels (comparitively speaking), but apparently had little next to no inkling of the type of angelic powers Paul was actually speaking of here - namely, those angelic powers that served as enforcing overseers to the OT law (Gal.4, Col.2).
And finally, it's unfortunate that the Way apparently took little advantage of its own Aramaic studies, for in Eph.2:15b, in association with the cross, it reads (as have Tertullian and St.Ephraem also cited these passages) "...and the law of commandments by His commandments [= the commandments of Christ] he abolished, that from the both of them he might create one new man..."
One might ask, what were the "commandments" of Christ? Somehow the sayings of Jesus were viewed, even from the vantage point of the cross, as having comprised the "new commandments" which replaced the abolished Old Testament.
Early Christians oft interpreted the "maxims" or "precepts" of Jesus as having comprised or included His sayings uttered on the Sermon on the mount, the new law of Christ for all christians to abide by. Precepts on how to treat other fellow human beings.
But rather than treat the sayings of Jesus as also suggested in their importance in the meaning of the cross of Christ, - we relegated them (those contained in the gospels) to the same ineffective status of the Old Testament commandments(!).
Wierwille would not need to have worried about losing his ministry to "license" had he known that the sayings of Jesus were the "new commandments" for Christians to live in accordance with, instead of construing and abusing the idea of "grace" as some period of a free-for-all orgy-rama.
Merely from my observations of the attestation of experiences expressed throughout this forum, I don't think it "pure folly" that the Way missed the boat somewhere concerning the meaning of the cross.
I submit that GS would not exist here today had the Way grasped and appreciated a fuller understanding of the cross of Christ. It's obvious to at least myself that a lot was missed. Which is unfortunate.
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Danny, if what you say here is true about organizational structure, then by comparison the Roman Catholic Church, with its divided and subdivided various leadership/overlord/school categories of overlords, are far from exhibiting or reflecting an especial meaning and deep understanding of the cross of Christ. Does institutional Mary Worship enhance the meaning of the cross of Christ?
And since they use the wooden/silver cross specifically as a supposed symbol of their faith around their necks, do THEY respect the true cross of Christ by their organizational structure with numerous overlords?
If the wooden/silver cross is really symbolic of the true meaning of the cross Christ bore, then they've denigraded it over the centuries by their rotten fruit, and shame on them for wearing that symbol.
[This message was edited by oldiesman on November 27, 2003 at 5:52.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
Great post, Dan.
What does this have to do with the Catholic Church, oldies? A straw man, perhaps?
Yes, the substance of the cross was deliberately and overtly minimized. In Way doctrine it was sublimated to the ressurrection. (Nothin "good" about Good Friday, Wierwille said). It was considered milk where "the mystery" was considered meat. I maintain that the rotten fruit was a direct result of missing entirely this essential point of our faith, as Dan pointed out. Wierwille's tip of the hat to the meaning of the cross was another exercise in "biblical accuracy" that missed the point altogether.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.